unmotorable or third class roads than motorable roads; some basic education schools without requisite facilities; a troubling incidence of HIV; challenges in environmental conservation and management and the development of an eco-tourism industry; problems with waste management, sanitation, and public health; a recurring cost of replacing street lighting due to the corrosive effect of the sea breeze on the light poles; an unstable irrigation infrastructure; and difficulties with adequately monitoring fisheries (Ada East District Assembly, 2015).
The Ada East district focuses significantly on tourism and the potential of this industry to contribute to both the local and national economy (Ada East District Assembly, 2015; Ghana Statistical Service, 2014). This focus on tourism is due to the geographic location of the Ada East district. The estuary of the Volta River which is a popular relaxation, boating, and swimming site in the country, is located in the district, making the district a highly attractive tourism destination. Further, the designation of the Songor Lagoon as a RAMSAR site gives the district increased international visibility. The district is also a habitat for endangered species. Finally, the district is close to Accra and therefore more accessible than many other areas with environmental amenities. As a result of this tourism focus, the Ada East district often casts all environmental challenges as a potential threat to the growth of tourism in the district and tends to portray people as the progenitors of these problems (Ada East District Assembly, 2015).
Fishing is a common activity among the Dangme (Haakonsen & Diaw, 1991). Migration is also a common practice among the Dangme (Haakonsen & Diaw, 1991). The commonness of migration among the Dangme, though, is primarily a result of the migratory nature of fishing due to the need for fishermen to follow schools of fish (Abobi
& Alhassan, 2015; Haakonsen & Diaw, 1991), though there are some records of
historical migration among the Dangme (Kuwornu-Adjaottor, 2015). The duolocal nature of residence patterns among the Dangme, in which women lived in households
independent of their husbands with other women, enabled women to pursue their own economic interests (Overa, 2003) as opposed to primarily their husband’s interests or those of the household. The access to resources that duolocal residence patterns give women is similar to those of the Ga (an ethnic group related to the Dangme who, together with the Dangme, form the larger ethnic group Ga-Adangme), particularly in domestic urban water supply and provision (Mensah & Fitzgibbon, 2013a). This gendered
character of fishing and historical residence patterns in the Ada East district highlighted gender as a relevant axis of identity for me to consider when selecting a sample of residents to interview.
Farming is also a dominant activity among the Dangme, and within the district at large, with farmers growing crops such as cassava, shallots, maize, tomatoes, and carrots (Ada East District Assembly, 2015; Ghana Statistical Service, 2014). Though a majority of the respondents I interviewed were fisherfolk based on my focus on sea defense
systems and the fact that most fisherfolk live closer to the coast than farmers, the status of farming in the municipality made it important to investigate this activity in my research on community resident livelihoods. Based on the livelihood activities of my sample (see Figures 5.1 and 5.2), I realized that livelihoods were a significant social marker through which to understand the views, discourses, and actions of the community residents (E. R. Carr, 2008, 2011; Codjoe, Atidoh, & Burkett, 2012; Molua, 2011; J. Ø. Nielsen & Reenberg, 2010).
Within this vulnerability context of inadequate support for agriculture and a hyper governmental focus on tourism - of which climate related changes such as sea-level rise and the efforts to deal with these changes such as sea defense systems are my current focus, it is possible to subdivide the population into groups by their experience of this context. These groups are those living in communities located directly behind the sea defense system (with the AdSDS), and those living in the one community that is not protected by the sea defense system (without the AdSDS). These groupings present a case of distinct vulnerability to climate change impacts – a situation in which members of the same population experience different climate change impacts or trends (Carr &
Thompson, 2014). Residents protected by the AdSDS should no longer (technically) experience coastal erosion and flooding while residents without the AdSDS still would.
The community without the SDS, called Totope, is in a more precarious
environment than most other communities along the district’s shoreline because Totope is hemmed in by the sea on one side and the Songor lagoon on the other (see Figure 5.3). I specifically name this community because the community leaders and some members I interacted with asked that I explicitly identify Totope in my research-in the hopes that someone would hear their plight of not being covered by the AdSDS, and come to their aid. The general sentiment from this community was that, in not being protected by the AdSDS, they had been sidelined by both the district and national government. The residents of Totope could not understand why the sea defense system ended less than a half mile short (approximately 0.465 miles) of their community, especially since Kablevu, the next community beyond Totope that is anywhere near the shoreline, is almost 5 miles away (see Figure 5.4).
Figure 5.3 Location of Totope between the Sea and the Songor Lagoon
As a result of this disenfranchisement, one of the community leaders of Totope has been very vocal on behalf of the community’s plight – speaking to the media and even featuring in a documentary by a journalist on coastal erosion in Ghana (Gakpo, 2016a). This visibility, coupled with residents expressing that they wanted their plight spread far and near, led me to explicitly identify this community in this dissertation. Another reason why I identify Totope is that it is the only community in the district not protected by the AdSDS. Therefore mentioning the vulnerability grouping of without AdSDS presents only one possible option.
The Problematization and Its Associated Identities and Discourses
The Ada sea defense system served as the problematization around which the aforementioned vulnerability context and relevant social cleavages (i.e. livelihoods and gender) cohered and I analyzed the perceptions of district government officials and community residents with regard to the problematization of the AdSDS. To reference an earlier footnote, the problematization emerges in the debate regarding the definition of
Figure 5.4 Totope in context of Last Groin and Kablevu
the problem at hand and the disagreements surrounding how to address that problem. As such, to begin the analysis of the AdSDS, I start with an assessment of major
occupational and life challenges faced by the residents before moving to the specific perceptions that district officials and community residents have of the AdSDS. This is in order to establish how these actors define the problem at hand along the coast of the Ada East district and whether their framing of the problem aligns with their perception of the solution the national government provided. Because there are three GoG rationalities under consideration, it is possible for individuals to be aligned with the GoG project of rule in some ways, while in disagreement with them in others. By illustrating the
can see the different ways in which actors become adaptation subjects via the project of rule which is SDS as CCA in the VRD.
I categorized the analysis of the perceptions of the AdSDS according to the aspects of functionality (ability to reclaim land or reduce erosion and /or flooding), design, and (experience of) construction. Based on these aspects, I summarized the
perceptions of district officials and community residents with respect to the AdSDS under the categories of appreciative of functionality (respondents generally thought the sea defense was good and had helped curb the problem of coastal erosion and flooding or reclaimed land), critical of functionality (the sea defense was not doing what it was supposed to by causing more problems such as erosion in some instances or not
reclaiming land fast enough), critical of design (groins should have extended further or been placed closer together), critical of construction (citing disturbances from trucks, cracks in buildings, and dust) and multiple (any combination of the aforementioned including an expression of uncertainty regarding making an evaluation of the AdSDS).
I begin this overall examination of the AdSDS with district government officials following the overall structure of this dissertation and its theoretical framework – where in employing governmentality as an analytical lens I begin with a national government framing of a problem and its attendant solution and then examine how this framing trickles down (or not) through the governance structure to demonstrate how various actors are (un)aligned as subjects of the project of rule at hand.
District Officials
I interviewed two district government officials: a District Planning Officer (DPO) and a Natural Resources Management Officer (NRMO) regarding their role in the
implementation of the AdSDS. In describing their major occupational concerns, the DPO talked more about project management and planning while the NRMO talked more about environmental conservation and protection. The DPO had intimate knowledge of the implementation of the AdSDS within the district. According to the DPO:
“The District’s role [in the project] was community mobilization and sensitization. We scheduled venues for meetings and took care of all radio announcements…We were the liaison between the Ministry, contractors, and other agencies involved such as the EPA for the EIA…It was the Assembly who wrote to the EPA to do the EIA…Whenever the contractors or consultants needed any local information, we provided that information for them.”
When I asked the DPO their thoughts on the AdSDS, the perception of the DPO was a mixture of appreciation for the functionality of the AdSDS and a critique of the implementation process. With regard to the work which the consultants and contractors conducted on the AdSDS, the DPO had the following to say:
“I enjoyed working with them [the consultants and contractors] – especially during the first phase [of the project]. It was very interactive…I would give them an overall A+ for the work done. There has been a remarkable improvement [in the reduction of flooding and coastal erosion]…in the past sea waves used to splash in front of the [Assembly] building...There used to be a lot of coconut trees
and other buildings before the [road that passes in front of the] Assembly – all those structures have been washed away...Other key facilities such as the district police station and the Kongenstein fort were taken away. The AdSDS has assisted in the protection of the coastline…the sea used to be where that heap of sand now is…the reclamation is gradual…”
The DPO appreciated the functioning of the AdSDS, stating that there had been
“remarkable improvement” in the reduction of flooding and coastal erosion. The DPO’s citing of past incidents of flooding and the loss of trees and key security (police station) and tourism (Kongenstein fort) infrastructure demonstrate their alignment with the GoG rationalities of climate change as an economic threat, and flooding and coastal erosion as serious climate-related impacts that require attention. The DPO’s acknowledgement of the assistance of the AdSDS in protecting the coastline aligns with the GoG rationality of addressing flooding and erosion through SDS and in so doing securing live(lihood)s and property. Thus, the DPO is greatly aligned with the project of rule of SDS as CCA. While the DPO points out that the reclamation of land by the AdSDS is gradual, this comment was more so to explain the absence of a wide beach to justify the DPO’s claims of protection at the time of the interview22. It is only in the process of provision of the
AdSDS that the DPO indicates any lack of alignment with the project of rule. In response to my question of whether the officer felt anything could have been done differently with regard to the AdSDS project (the implementation process), the DPO said the following:
“With regard to administrative procedures…there were certain instances that emergency works needed to be done, and the equipment of the contractors could have easily been used. Yet they [the contractors] always insisted that we had to go
through the MWRWH for permission. And these were for emergency works. For example, a storm pushed sea sand onto the road and blocked one of the
communities along the coast – this happened overnight. We made an SOS call to the MWRWH but the contractors could not release their equipment [to help with the removal of the sand]. We received a lot of pressure from the people because this road blockage happened around a market day…”
The DPO was not satisfied with all the stipulations that governed the project and thus was critical of the implementation process because to the DPO these stipulations did not take into account local level needs and realities and made the DPO feel somewhat slighted after all the help the process required the Assembly to provide to the consultants and contractors. Despite this critique of the AdSDS implementation process, I it is clear the DPO is, overall, significantly aligned with the GoG project of rule of SDS as CCA.
With regard to environmental conservation and protection as it relates to the AdSDS, the NRMO felt the planning of the AdSDS had gone well (appreciation of implementation process) since the NRMO’s unit had been able to influence the design of the AdSDS to its current technology of groins to facilitate the annual nesting of turtles along the beach:
“We helped redesign the initial design of the sea defense system from land reclamation through beach nourishment [using deep sea sand] to the groin system for turtles to have access to the beach. They (the contractors) brought a dredger and deposited deep sea sand – which is very hard and will prevent erosion - onto the coast. However the turtles could not dig to nest in this sand and the turtles now had to travel some ten to fifteen meters inland to lay eggs. So the design was
changed to that of the groins - using natural sand along the beach which the waves would re-distribute.”
The NRMO’s comment above on groin redesign shows their appreciation of the final design of the AdSDS, but only insofar as this design assisted the nesting of turtles. The NRMO’s concern for turtles to be able to nest in the sand and not have to travel further inland stems from the mental imprint that turtles have of the sand in which they hatch to which they return to nest when they are fully grown (Sea Turtle Conservancy, 2015). As a result, the NRMO stated that redistributing existing sand through groin technology would auger better for turtle nesting than dumping “new” sand from the sea bed. As far as the discourse of the NRMO was concerned, it was one of preserving the sea turtles. As I queried this official about their role in the AdSDS, they began to talk to me about turtles:
“This area is an important site for nesting turtles…Ada up to Ningo receives more turtles along the entire Ghanaian coast. Restoration works needed to be done such that the turtles could still lay their eggs…”
It is clear that this official was only concerned about the AdSDS as far as it facilitated his professional objective of protecting these turtles, which could be potentially endangered by warming oceans and sea level rise that would take away the nesting grounds of these creatures (Sea Turtle Conservancy, 2015). The officer then proceeded to tell me about the specific species of turtles that nest on the coast of the Ada East District, such as the olive ridley, the loggerhead, the hawksbill, and the green sea turtle. Protecting and conserving sea turtles was most certainly this official’s primary objective as far as the AdSDS was
concerned. Therefore, it does not appear that this officer was mobilized by the GoG framing of climate change as an economic threat. As far as this officer is concerned, environmental conservation and particularly the conservation of turtles is the problem that needs greater attention.
When I asked this officer for their perceptions of the AdSDS itself however, this officer felt that some of the groins were disintegrating (critique of construction) and was not sure how well those groins would hold up after a number of years. The officer also stated that it would take anywhere between three and six years before any conclusive statements could be made on the benefits or otherwise of the AdSDS as far as land reclamation (and benefit to turtle species) were concerned:
“It is very early to determine the impact [of the AdSDS] on turtles… we are conducting continuous monitoring. During the last nesting season we had taskforce members along the coast. After restoration [of the beach through land reclamation], it will take anywhere from three to six years to see how wide the natural deposits will be. We have done a lot of baseline studies in order to be able to carry out before, during, and after studies.”
Again turtles emerged as the subject of the evaluation, showing a stance outside of the GoG’s project of rule regarding SDS as CCA which secures (human) live(lihood)s and property. Also, this notion of “waiting to see” reflects the discourse of the time that needs to pass before evaluating a SDS espoused by Academic 1 (Chapter Four). This issue of timescales introduces some uncertainty or caution in evaluation and thus further positions
the NRMO as an actor not as aligned as the DPO to the project of rule associated with the AdSDS.
I find the statements of the NRMO on the AdSDS inconclusive because the officer failed to directly address whether they were appreciative or not of the functioning of the sea defense system itself. The officer assessed the process as far as it concerned the officer’s job by taking about their ability to influence the design process, and they
intimated how long they thought the sea defense system might last by talking about disintegration of the groins. By not clearly providing either an appreciative or critical review of the functioning of the AdSDS, this officer side-stepped the objective of the question, “what are your thoughts on the AdSDS?” The framing of the question might have led to the inconclusiveness of the NRMO perception with regard to the functioning of the AdSDS. However the NRMO’s inconclusiveness regarding functionality is again telling of the extent of their alignment with GOG rationalities concerning sea defense